Filter Results CategoriesCart
Highlight Updates

1.2.7 New Jersey and Oregon Warranty Statutes of General Applicability

New Jersey and Oregon have also enacted warranty statutes, like California’s (discussed in § 1.2.6, supra), that apply broadly to most consumer products. Oregon’s statute, while applicable to almost all new consumer goods, is more limited than the California statute.52 Its main requirement is that the manufacturer provide a replacement or refund to the consumer if the manufacturer is unable to service or repair the goods in compliance with the warranty.53

New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act54 provides the consumer a private cause of action if a seller sells or displays a warranty that violates any consumer right that is clearly established by state or federal law.55 “Display” includes showing the consumer a third-party warranty in the course of selling the product.56

The law provides a private cause of action with a civil penalty of up to $100 or actual damages or both to any “aggrieved consumer.”57 It thus provides a way to remedy illegal warranty terms, even when those terms have not yet been enforced. The consumer must have suffered some form of harm as a result of the defendant’s conduct in order to be “aggrieved,”58 but the harm need not be monetary.59 Waiver is prohibited.60 The statute is remedial and entitled to a broad interpretation.61


  • 52 {52} Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.8010 to 72.8200. But cf. Walters v. Vitamin Shoppe Indus., Inc., 701 Fed. Appx. 667 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting exclusion of consumable goods from Oregon warranty law’s definition of “consumer good”).

  • 53 {53} Or. Rev. Stat. § 72.8100.

  • 54 {54} N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:12-14 to 56:12-18 (West).

  • 55 {55} N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:12-15 (West).

  • 56 {56} Smith v. Vanguard Dealer Services, L.L.C., 2010 WL 5376316 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 21, 2010) (per curiam).

  • 57 {57} N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:12-17 (West).

  • 58 {58} Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., 181 A.3d 969 (N.J. 2018). See also Wilson v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 2015 WL 3903540 (D.N.J. June 25, 2015) (even if statement that consumer must send notice to manufacturer by certified mail to invoke lemon law rights misstates lemon law, not a violation of New Jersey act when plaintiff did not plead that she intended to invoke lemon law).

  • 59 {59} Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., 181 A.3d 969, 980–981 (N.J. 2018) (stating as an example that a consumer may be “aggrieved” if untimely delivery and a misleading “no refunds” language leave the consumer without furniture needed for a family gathering).

  • 60 {60} N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:12-16 (West).

  • 61 {61} Shelton v., Inc., 70 A.3d 544 (N.J. 2013).